Post #24565

fcf118844bd696317240f189be85a58f24a65acb9cbd1264178b6f3b46967945
e555528178e22f1735ca2d88459257c96772e7245f083f91933c5bc0e296f46c
Signature not verified

This entry might be using an old signature, or it was signed by a key that does not exist on the server.

{"entry_date":1581801943,"post_data":{"edit_count":1,"last_edit_date":1581801906,"last_edit_user_id":8,"message_sha512":"6a0815d2259bda248edbd1fbac27e41079a5ddea1c887cd76b304cb90c15ef3808b4a156f2a01b226ac92823a42c3db5817c89c58653109f94f310c1706043b2","node_id":52,"post_date":1581799699,"thread_id":3423,"user_id":8},"post_link":"https:\/\/factomize.com\/forums\/index.php?threads\/3423#post-24565"}
The entry content as it exists in the database. This should be verified against the blockchain entry.
Voting NO on anchor and Oracle master grants
In principle other parties could execute it, so it is not an automatic checkmark.

I am rather worried several parties voted no. And IMO it would be good to have the insight of these parties and also have them involved in coming up with a solution

Tagging parties to get their insights:
[USER=103]@Nic R[/USER] [USERGROUP=23]@Factomatic[/USERGROUP]
[USERGROUP=42]@Kompendium[/USERGROUP] (you abstained as well so it wasn;t counted, still happy to hear your thoughts on the matter)
[USERGROUP=8]@DBGrow[/USERGROUP] & [USER=27]@Brian Deery[/USER] (including you guys, despite the No-mistake on everything, as you could vote No regardless of course)
This is the raw content, without BBCode parsing.
Top